Nobel Prize winner Sir Paul Nurse examines why science appears to be under attack, and why public trust in key scientific theories has been eroded – from the theory that man-made climate change is warming our planet, to the safety of GM food, or that HIV causes AIDS.

He interviews scientists and campaigners from both sides of the climate change debate, and travels to New York to meet Tony, who has HIV but doesn’t believe that that the virus is responsible for AIDS.

This is a passionate defence of the importance of scientific evidence and the power of experiment, and a look at what scientists themselves need to do to earn trust in controversial areas of science in the 21st century.

Nurse was Pres of Rockefeller Univ in NYC for many yrs, moved his lab there, still has one there (although returned to London to the Crick Institute in 2011) so what can you expect? Frequent guest on Charlie Rose who lets him say anything without being challenged…Helene

Why would you be afraid to watch this? It’s an excellent argument for reason and communication. Points are made which are worth consideration. While I might have complete faith in the fact that I’m a spiritual being having a human experience, while having this human experience, I’m not going to tempt the validity of gravity, at least not until science has perfected the anti-gravity machine. We have historical proof that science has been used by politicians and religious figures to deceive the public and exercise power but the great majority of scientists are working valiantly to solve complex problems and bring solutions to the problems. A valid point is made in the documentary that it isn’t Truth to cherry pick items out of a situation and call it done! What I got from this was a reminder to myself to be thoughtful and consider all sides, as best I can. My position is unchanged politically, however I do want to go in search of answers to arguments against this or that and I do want to stop looking for and seeing bogey men behind every bush and I do want to start sounding intelligent and thoughtful as opposed to sweepingly condemnatory.

Sandy, read Tertius response, which echoes my thoughts so well . . . and you will know why I didn’t really want to watch it. I sensed what was coming . . . the blind leading the blind in maintaining the status quo. Hugs, ~Jena

The gentleman and Nobel prize guy (does he not indeed look like Neil Keenan, hahahah?) appears really being on the right track: the lack of public communication. For this he has my absolute support, since he also talks (necessarily) on the role of doubt – and he explains it in it´s twofold meanings – in scienc.

Thinking and acting scientific needs indeed clear algorithms and mind sets being open to trial and error, and the peer group reference of former times has broken up in the age of internet, which has deep impacts: now even “uneducated folks apart from the subject” find themselves proper having part of even science discussions.

The old professor is clearly missing these old times of more distinction he came from, but is not looking backward as if it could be changed – he is calling for more open discourses. He is right and he is baffled at once. For the truth is: public discourses – it has become common in those days going public – appear under the disguise of truth, but in fact are covered with lies. Public discourse yes, but please in ways which do not reveal the full truth! Thus “science under attack”, which is the subject in this film, is really NOT a case of going public having real discourses, but rather getting tangled up in something beyond a real truth: and that is lying. A lie is not simply telling something wrong, but also telling twisted versions of a story.

The presence of almigty politics makes lying a proper tool in modern science – first to get money, second to be able to conduct undisturbed research. Modern science thus has become to a big part a strategy of getting ones´s share of the cake. Scientists are mostly not different from normal greety humans in looking and securing a notable outcome.

So the Nobel fucker might be a good and honest man, but fails seeing the need of lies coming around as “public disclosure”. He remains a slave of the system. Deadlock in it´s highest expression. He will finally not get heard.

As long as people not fully understand science in it´s different connotations to truth, honesty and character establishment, some will always consider science a good way to dominate others, rest in a comfortable realm most people do not belong and getting payed by unconscious politicians and companies who prefer economics and profit…

I can’t refute what Tertius says and actually I agree with much of it, however I began listening to this after examining my own conscience. Was I guilty of simply jumping on bandwagons that resonate with me? Could I actually try to listen impersonally and find what truth was there? I’m still pissed off at the Galileo thing and am not an inherent fan of science…as a matter of fact, I’m an astrologer so you might have a better sense of my regard for scientific method.

But this man, who has won the Nobel isn’t stupid. He’s studied his subject within the constraints he was taught for over 30 years and as he says in the video, it’s those who challenge and step outside the box that make the difference ( I think alluding to himself and other Nobel winners.) I was determined to give this man respect as he presented his side of the argument and I’m aware I’m looking at his side of the argument.
When he interviewed the newpaper man, I thought he gave him great respect, as well. And honestly, I thought the newspaper man somewhat arrogant in making proclamations based on an email with a phrase that includes the word trick. It was clear the newspaper man had cherry picked an issue and hadn’t bothered to study the issue in it’s entirety.

I have friends who are scientists and they’re often an odd lot with a sense of humor that many would find somewhat childish and silly. Things they think are hilarious leave the rest of us scratching our heads. Does anyone know the origin of the phrase in the email? I don’t. However, it sounds very much like some scientist’s idea of funny. And the documentary clearly points out that there was difficulty reconciling methods of graphing. There’s nothing earthshaking or scandalous about that. There was a problem and an attempt at a solution. It doesn’t change what we know from our observations…the earth is going through changes.

I’ll stop now and ask that others of good faith and reason look at the documentary and open your minds. Try to hear what is being said. There is a final plea for more communication and transparency. Don’t just jump on an entire bandwagon without thinking. Slow it down and begin to carefully examine what you know and what you don’t. Admit what you don’t know and go find answers. Let’s stop this across the board condemnation of everything when we haven’t actually studied the subject and others have. Of course, there is duplicity, evil and punishable action going on where there is power and God willing, we’ll bring those people to the stockade, but let’s listen and respect until proven otherwise. We are that intelligent and fair. And never be afraid to honestly listen to the argument and question….ourselves as well others.

Can only agree with Captain – personal research has shown how the psycho-bullies have taken over science to serve their own twisted agenda – the majority of scientists will not speak about this, if they are aware, due to fear of losing the means to make a living or worse – look at David Kelly, Andrew Wakefield.
Sexual abuse, torture and murder parrticularly of children, forms a large part of the glue that helps hold all this nastiness together as a working model of control and coercion.
The edges of this psychopathic web are just beginning to be seen creeping into MSM, but only, as we all know, due to the release of this info on the internet by those of us who have woken up to it.
Every time I see “BBC Documentary”, there’s sadness along with the confident knowledge that whatever they present as “the facts so far” will certainly be a long way away from the reality of things as I, and growing numbers of other folk have come to understand it.
The BBC is a lying, corrupt institution by default, arguably treasonous due to its reciving of millions from the ECB (stated aims for loans is the furtherance of the EU – this strongly suggests lack of impartiality) and in breach of its remit, as it constantly takes the editorial position NOT to include information that would allow its Licence Fee-paying viewers to arrive at the most informed working conclusions – e.g. its coverage of the Boston false flag (not even a mention of the possibility of a false flag); Sandy Hook (ditto); 9/11; 7/7; Diana’s murder; the JFK assassination etc etc.

Regarding HIV/ AIDS. HIV is a designer virus, created by the Bush gang buds under Regan (when Sr and Cheney told the actor what to day and do.). Part of theGOP plan to ‘get rid of the gays in America and the blacks in Africa. There is a cure, but limited only to those in govn’t. (Ever hear of anyone in Congress with AIDs?) For info – Search/ read: Trance-Formation of America by Cathy O’Brien and Mark Philips .. or The Strecker Memorandum.
(Warning: Cathy’s book is very graphic about twisted sex in the WH and Congress gang, and what they do to little US kids they ‘buy’ from parents they target with false abuse charges to get kids.)